Base gas advisor ($0.002)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact most tools omit: a $0.002 USDC charge per call. The "Returns..." phrasing also signals a read-only advisory with no state change. It omits freshness/staleness of the fee data and whether pricing requires a funded USDC balance, which matters for an agent planning invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: the decision question first, the return payload second, the price last. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must describe the return payload itself, and it does so concretely (base fee, fullness, three fee tiers, USD costs for transfer and swap), which is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The remaining gap is that a gas advisor's usefulness depends on data freshness, which is not stated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is fully determined by ambient network state, requiring no agent-supplied input.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete decision question and then enumerates exactly what comes back: next base fee, block fullness, slow/normal/fast EIP-1559 suggestions, and USD transfer/swap costs. That output list makes it unmistakable against the sibling tools (check, position_size, report), which do different jobs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The framing "Should I submit a Base transaction now or wait?" gives a clear use context: call this when deciding whether to transact on Base. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or naming an alternative (e.g., a plain fee lookup) for callers who only want raw fee data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.